Talk:MA37 Individual Combat Weapon System
288 Reserve Since the normal maximum amount of reserve ammunition is only 288, rather then the 600, shouldn't the infobox be changed to show that, and have a note about the 600 rounds? I was only thinking this because the sniper rifle says 24 in its box, while in Nightfall much more can be held. Arcdash 18:09, September 17, 2010 (UTC) :Bungie was "generous" in Nightfall. As some weapons can be used up relatively quickly, Bungie gave the player extra clips to make it easier for them. This happened with "Truth and Reconciliation", also.-- Forerun '' 18:19, September 17, 2010 (UTC)'' ::Right, but I was asking about whether 288 should be the maximum reserve ammunition in the info box, since the 600 maximum rounds was only for one mission. Merge Back in April, the merge proposal pointed out that the MA37 has an embedded metal plate on its side. The proposal was closed due to majority wanting to wait for full information to be released/the game to be released. Now, I'm reviving the merge again, seeing that what I sought to do back then has returned. The metal plate reads as so: MA5C - Mk 4 7.62 mm NATO Round Payload Mag air cooled gas operated AR Based on the provided, it is now apparent that the MA37 (which is the Army designation) also has another title; the MA5C Mk 4 (which is the Marine designation). Seeing that the MA37 behaves entirely similar to the MA5C, I suggest that all of the information merged into the MA5C article, with a section dedicated to the MA37. An example of the format/layout can be seen here (note: ignore the information in the linked article. simply focus at the layout).- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 22:04, September 19, 2010 (UTC) Support # As per above.- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 22:04, September 19, 2010 (UTC) # As per above, also, the note about it being called the MA5 in the Navy may simply refer to the weapon series as a whole, i.e. MA5A/B/C all included. Also, worth noting is that in Waypoint's weapons video that came out recently it was stated that it has been in service since 2437. 37, hence the name. This would mean that the MA5 (same weapon) has most likely been in service with the Navy since either 2405 or, more likely 2505. So it makes it pretty clear that, for example, the MA5B and C have their own pages as they are different weapons (though, as I understand it, they are supposed to be visually identical, the only differences being smaller magazines to prevent jamming and a lowered rate of fire to prevent spray and pray, so it's a newer version) but the MA37 and MA5C are the same weapon. Sure there are a few visual differences, but if you put a rail system, or a scope, or a grenade launcher, or a different stock even, on an M16A4, it's still an M16 series A4 version, not a different version. Also, more polygons and wanting a more grittier for the game meant a change in most of the visuals. Alex T Snow 20:27, September 21, 2010 (UTC) # I'm going to have to agree, and I'd also support a merge of the SRS99C and SRS99C-AMB, as per below. As of right now, basically every point the opposition has made has been resolved by Subtank. ' / / STRYKER' [ COM | | | AAU/HUM ] 22:31, September 28, 2010 (UTC) # I think they should be merged, but change the name to "assault rifle" or a name that designates that the merged page is all tha rifles. Heloman1 21:42, October 11, 2010 (UTC) Oppose # Bungie's website states that the Marines name it the MA5 not MA5C. The MA5C has a different shape to it and has a straight top unlike the more angled top on the MA37 and MA5B. Marines are also seen using the MA37 in Long Night of Solace and Pillar of Autumn levels. The Bungie website also stated that it entered service in 2437 which is over 100 years before the events of Reach and H3. See this. ::Did you not see the metal plate I provided? The "Mk 4" makes it reasonable to imply that the rifle is the fourth generation/model, being in service for over 100 years. Part of the reason as to why the design has a different, though minor, design is to show off their game engine (hence more polygons than H3 Marine) and to make it look more realistic (refer to Dev Commentary). As for your "Marines are also seen using the MA37", Bungie wouldn't want to waste space by adding another weapon model if they operate and behave similarly. Additionally, this is where canon policy is enforced; Game Canon trumps over Other Media (Bungie.net). As such, your point is moot.- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 07:41, September 20, 2010 (UTC) # The weapons are obviously different with power accuracy and range ,also i don't know how to do the oppose templateAdmiralmorris 22:32, September 20, 2010 (UTC) ::Those does not matter. What matters is the canon content.- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 22:36, September 20, 2010 (UTC) ::Why is it not cannon other than ammo that is the only difference between the assault rifles from the other halo games ::but yet they still have their own pages.Admiralmorris 00:31, September 21, 2010 (UTC) :::????? - 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 18:33, September 21, 2010 (UTC) # — We have separate pages for different variants of the SRS99C and the pintle-mounted M247 variants, this should be no different. Also, "Mark __" doesn't completely signify that a weapon is the same as another. For example, the "Mark 48 Light Machine Gun" is a variant of the M249 SAW, however, the two are different in many different capacities. The '37 features an entirely different stock assembly, magazine, firing module, fore end, and pistol grip; the only thing it shares with the '5C is the 7.62mm NATO cartridge and the magazine capacity. ::If the weapon behaves and operates similarly to its base model, then it should most definitely be merged into the base model with its own dedicated section. In the case of the MA37, the only thing different is its structure/design and I agree with you; it looks completely distinct from the MA5C. However, part of this can be explained due to the graphical updates made to the game engine. And I quote; ::The above quote should be sufficient. If Halo 3 had this update, no doubt in my mind Bungie would design the MA5C with even more polygons and with even more detail. Other than that, the MA37 behaves and operates similarly to the MA5C. It even has the same sound file (pointless but related). I agree with your example, because the weapon variant behaves completely different from the base model. However, this is not the case of the MA37. ::As for the "separated articles", refer to my first sentence. I would most definitely in support of merging Halo 2's sniper rifle into Halo: CE's SRS99C article; the AMB article has a copied text from the SRS99C and it's simply redundant. As for the M247, the HMG variant behaves completely different from the GPMG. Like your example, I don't see why these two should be separated.- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 18:33, September 21, 2010 (UTC) # - Per CommanderTony. Helljumper U T 19:00, September 21, 2010 (UTC) # — Fercrissakes, Bungie would not have gone to all the effort of advertising it as a new weapon with a new designation if they just wanted it to be another MA5C! The game's manual even lists it as the MA37.--The All-knowing Sith'ari 19:13, September 21, 2010 (UTC) ::The truth speaks for itself.- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 19:17, September 21, 2010 (UTC) # - I have to agree with Major Tony on this. The differences between the MA5B and C as seen in the Halo Trilogy are MINIMAL compared to the differences between those two models and the MA37, yet Halopedia regards the differences between the MA5B and MA5C as sufficient to give them separate articles. I see absolutely no reason why, if those minimal differences are enough to warrant separate articles, the differences between the MA5C and the MA37, which are at LEAST an order of magnitude GREATER, aren't enough to warrant separate articles as well. Dewback rancher 16:41, September 24, 2010 (UTC) ::The thing you seem to disregard is that the MA5B and C are confirmed to be different models of the MA5 series, whereas the MA37 is simply an Army designation for the MA5C, as per metalplate on the sides of the rifle. Designation =/= Model.- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 17:01, September 24, 2010 (UTC) :::I'm not disregarding that, I just simply don't find that to be the be-all, end-all of evidence, as there is precedent for writing on the weapons' in-game models =/= their actual designation and/or model: the Rocket Launcher generally has "SPNKr" emblazoned on the side, yet if I'm not mistaken that is NOT the weapon's actual model OR designation. In other words, that alone is not sufficient evidence to say it IS an MA5C in the absence of corroborating evidence. Which I have not seen to my satisfaction yet. Remember, just because I disagree with you does NOT mean I am ignorant of the evidence you're using. Dewback rancher 19:35, September 24, 2010 (UTC) ::::The differences between the MA5B and C is larger than that between the MA5C and MA37. By omitting graphical updates (i.e. polygon count, because graphics makes everything prettier as time passes. For more on graphical differences, refer to my comment under Tony's) and reviewing it from gameplay perspective, you can see that the MA5B had gross inaccuracy, larger capacity, shorter range (debateable), and faster rate of fire than the MA5C. This is different from the MA5C and the MA37 where the only change is the slightly lowered rate of fire. Other than that, the MA37 is a carbon-copy of the MA5C, only to be labelled using Army designation. I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that the MA5B and MA5C are similar as they are largely different when compared to the differences between MA5C and MA37. That, and my model =/= designation comment. As for the SPNKr weapons, the problem is that they are confirmed to be different models. If it was otherwise, then I don't see why the designation weapon should be given its own article. It should be merged into its base model, as per my comment on the SRS99C. - 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 13:59, September 26, 2010 (UTC) # - Bungie is highly prone to misprinting or printing early concepts of weapon names, as evidenced by the Reach magnum and M19 rocket launcher. Every source states that it is either called MA37 or (just) MA5.-- FluffyEmoPenguin(ice quack!) 07:58, September 25, 2010 (UTC) ::Refer to Alex T Snow's comment and my proposal's evidence for merge. Bungie may have been negligent for errors in the past but unless some official statement is given, we have to treat everything as canon. Logic and common sense apply. Regarding the M6G'B, it has been confirmed that the weapon is the M6G regardless of how you want to argue, and that gives off the implication that the typo on the wepaon is not actually a "typo" but instead a new labelling/designation system employed by the UNSC (and Bungie). We need to treat everything that is in-game as canon, and this nameplate is part of that. Also, I thought we've cleared that M6G issue a long time ago...... Even Waypoint's Implements of War video refers the M6G as having a smart scope attached (*hint hint KFA 2x*)... - 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 13:59, September 26, 2010 (UTC) :::First off, I don't know how many times I have to tell you not to take everything that Bungie does as on purpose; it's absolutely ridiculous. It really seems like your logic is just all over the place. The MA5C is an upgrade to the MA5B. Furthermore, a Mk 4 variant would be an even newer variant. How is it even possible that the Army would be using a super upgraded variant of the weapon the Marines don't even use yet? Even further, the MA37 is much more retro looking and functioning so there's no way that it would be an MA5C. I think anyone here can tell you that this weapon is not an MA5C variant. The only thing holding this back is the nameplate. That's it. Also, how does Waypoint stating that the M6G has a scope prove your thesis? We already have it confirmed that it uses the KFA-2.-- FluffyEmoPenguin(ice quack!) 23:22, October 11, 2010 (UTC) # - Merge this, and we might aswell merge the Plasma Rifle and Plasma Repeater. Teh Halfblud ::Both the Plasma Rifle and Plasma Repeater are confirmed to be two different models, just like the MA5B and MA5C... *sigh* - 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 13:59, September 26, 2010 (UTC) :::Well then Kat. Teh Halfblud 17:01, October 1, 2010 (UTC) #c - It is undeniably a member of the same family, but it is markedly different in more than just aesthetics. Besides, the Army tended to get the least advanced equpment, with tech being given to other branches more freely. It is not unlikely that it was in fact a prototype being given to the Army for use on insurgents. If it did well, which it clearly did, then it would be tweaked for Marine usage and given to them for use on Covenant. It is more accurate, fires slightly slower than the MA5C, is slightly less powerful, has a thinner profile, and was jagged, which could lead it to snag on equipment. The MA5C is clearly a more refined weapon, better suited for mid-close range operations because it is more ferocious and ergonomic. Why else give the "less-important" Army superior equipment than to be used as guinea pigs for a possibly faulty piece of equipment? They only have a single player-usable tank on mankind's most important asset among the stars. The Army has always been the neglected little brother to the Navy (the NON-disposable SPARTAN-II's) and Marines (the Orbital Drop Shock Troopers), and only gets unrefined, disposable, fire and forget commandos who get advanced SPI Armor, but have a terrible survival record, because unlike well known public figures like SPARTAN-II's and people with family like ODST's, they don't exist and are relatively cheap and therefore the hundreds who die aren't going to leave a mark on morale. If the Army is GIVEN the short straw, then why not give them weapons that, for all the REMF's know, could be a collosal failure instead of give them to more "valuble" units and branches that the war supposedly hinges on and could die from possible equipment failure. :Besides, the Reach section on the M6G page didn't get much support, so the page's quality is higher if it is an individual entity rather than an add-on. Delta1138 20:27, September 27, 2010 (UTC) ::A concise article is far more of value and quality than an article of duplicated information. Also, Army is cool. ;) - 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 20:50, September 28, 2010 (UTC) # - There's really no doubt about it, they're both apart of the same family, but I just think that two designations should remain as two designations. I mean, the two are clearly different weapons, and although I do find it strange that there are weapons dedicated to the Army, and then weapons dedicated to the Marines which are standard issue (compared to our present times where both Marines and the Army use the M16 weapon line) I still think in general the two are separate weapons, and should remain as such. : The Freelancer 00:38, October 11, 2010 (UTC)